ALBON V.

FERNANDO
The City of Marikina undertook a public work project to widen, clear
and repair the existing sidewalks of Marikina Greenheights
Subdivision pursuant to ordinance 59 s. 1993.
Albon filed with the RTC a taxpayer’s suit for certiorari, prohibition
and injunction with damages against respondents. He claimed that it
was unconstitutional and unlawful for the respondents to use the
government equipment, and property and to disburse public funds for
the public work in Subdivision, which is a private property, owned by
V.V. Soliven.
The trial court denied the application for the TRO and writ of
preliminary injunction. It reasoned that the undertaking was covered
by PD 1818 and SC No. 68-94 which prohibited the courts from
issuing a TRO or injunction in. Any case, dispute, controversy
involving a infrastructure project of the government. It ruled that the
City of Marikina was authorized to carry out the undertaking pursuant
to its police power and invoking 1991 decision in White Plains
Association v. Legazpi, that the roads and sidewalks inside the
Marikina Greenheights Subdivision were deemed a private property.
RULING
The SC held that the trial and appellate courts were correct in
upholding the validity of the Ordinance 59 since it was enacted in the
exercise of the City of Marikina’s police powers to regulate the use of
sidewalks. However, they erred in invoking the 1991 Decision on
White Plains case.
The ruling in that case was modified in 1998 and held that the
subdivision streets belong to the owner until donated to the
government or until expropriated. So it is considered a private
property until donated or expropriated. (Certificate of completion and
executing a deed of donation). Corollary, in Section 335 of RA 7160
provides that no public money or property shall be appropriated for
private purposes. Hence, the LGU funds for the widening of privately
owned sidewalk is unlawful.
Test of validity – essential character of the direct object of the
expenditure which must determine its validity and not the magnitude
of interests to be affercted not the degree to which the general
advantage of the community and thus the public welfare may be
ultimately benefited by their promotion.
Hence, subdivision is material to the dertermination of the validity of
the challenged appropriation and disbursement made by the City of
Marikina. Significant is the character of the direct object of the
expenditure, sidewalks.

CIR v. PRIME Holdings

This a consolidated petitions involving sole issue of whether gross
receipts derived form admission tickets by cinema/ theater operators
or proprietoros are subject to VAT.
SM Prime and First Asia are both engaged in the business of
operating cinema houses.
SM Prime and First Asia was assessed by the BIR for their VaT
deficiencies. Both of them protested the assessments to which the BIR
denied.
The CTA ruled that the activity of showing cinematographic films is
not a service covered by VAT under the NIRC, but an activity subject
to amusement tax under the LGC which is 30%.
CTA En Banc ruled that there is an exhaustive enumeration of what
services are intended to be subject to VAT. And the showing of motion
pictures, films or movies by cinema operators or proprieties are not
among the enumerated activities contemplated in the phrease “sale
or exchange of services” hence not subject to VAT.
ISSUE is whether the gross receipts derived by operators or
proprietors of cinema/ theater houses from admission tickets are
subject to VAT.
The court held that the enumeration under Section 108 id not
exhaustive. Among in the included in the enumearation I sthe “lease
of motion picture films, tapes and discs” however this is not the same
as the showing or exhibition of motion pictures/films. Further, the
legislative intent is that no VAT is imposed to those persons already
covered by the amusement tax.
The repeal of the TAX Code in 1991 is not a legal basis for the
imposition of VAT on the Gross receipts of cinema/theater operators
or proprietors derived from admission tickets. The removal of the
prohibition unde the LTC dod not grant nor restore to the national
government the power to impose amusement tax on conema/theater
operators.
Philippine Fisheries Development Authority v. CA, Municipality of
Navotas
Facts: Respondent Municipality of Navotas assessed real estate taxes
allegedly due from petitioner Philippine Fisheries Development on
properties under its management, jurisdiction and operation insider
the Navotas Fishing Port Complex.
When the assessed tax remained unpaid, the municipality gave notice
to the petitioner that the NFPC will be sold at the public auction to be
able to collect the delinquent taxes to which petitioner sought
deferment claiming that it is owned by the Republic of the Philippines.
Further, it is not a taxable entity pursuant to PD No. 977.
In view of the refusal to pay, the matter was referred to Department
of Finance. The DOF stated that since the PFDA has leased the
properties to beneficial users such as “businessmen, private persons
and entities who are taxable persons,” it is imperative that an ocular
inspection be done to identify the properties actually leased to taxable
persons. It instructed the PFDA to furnish the Municipality a copy of
documents showing the leased properties and their beneficial users
for proper assessment of real estate taxes.
The municipality proceeded to publish the notice of sale of NFPC. PFA
institued a civil case to RTC to enjoin the auction og NFPC.
RTC Decision
Judgment was rendered in favor of the Municipality on the ground
that the PFDA failed to present convincing evidence to support its
claim of realty tax exemption and ownership of the property by the
Republic of the Philippines. The scheduling of the public auction is
proper since the Municipality has the power to assess and collect
taxes on real properties.
CA Decision
 The Navotas Fishing Port Comples was reclaimed from the sea and
thus fact was admitted by the counsel of the Municipality, the
Assessor, and the Treasurer. Such being the case, the land and its
ownership as property of public dominion can hradly be disputed. It
was certified by the Public Works and Highways that the reclaimed
land, breakwaters, piers, wharves and quywalls and fish market
buildings forming part of the Port were built using the proceeds o fthe
loan agreement entered in to by the RP and the Asian Development
Bank.
The Philippine Fish Marketing Authority was created as a body
corporate by PD 977.it was exempted from the payment of income tax.
However, the exemption may be entirely or partly lifyed by the
Presidernt of the PH, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of
Finance, not earlier than 5 years from the approval of the Decree , if
the President shall find the authority to be self- sustaining and
financially capable to pay such tax after providing for debt service
requirements of the authority and its projected capital and operating
expenditures.
PD 977 which created the PFMA as a body corporate was amended by
EO 772, where the Philippine Fisheries Development Authority was
created to replace PFMA; the capitalization of the PFDA included the
NFPC and the NFPC has been transferred to the exclusive
jurisdiction, control and administration of the PFDA.
Hence, the PFDA became the owner of the Navotas Fishing Port
Complex.
Property continues to be a part of the public domain and not available
for alienatio, private appropriation or ownership until it is withdrawn
from being such by the Government through Executive Department or
the Legislative. So, it is not only the President can convey the propety.
However, during the time of Marcos, he exercises both executive and
legislative powers. Hence the conveyance of the NFPC to the PFDA is
valid.
Issue: WON the PFDA is exempted from realty taxes.
SC Ruling:
The local government unit, pursuant to the fiscal autonomy granted by
the provisions of RA 7160, can impose realty taxes on juridical
persons subjects to the limitations enumerated in the code. One of
which is that the LGU shall not levy taxes, fees, charges of any king on
national govenrment, its agencies and onstrumentalities and local
government units. However, this exemption does not extend when the
beneficial use of the government property has been granted to taxable
persons. (Section 234b)
Thus, PFDA being an instrumentality of the government is exempt
from real property taxes but the exemption does not extenf to the
portions of the NFPC that were leased to taxable or private persons
and entities for their beneficial use.

Erricson Telecommunications Inc v. City of Pasig

Assessment Notices were issued to Erricson for its business tax
deficiency for taxable years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 based on its
gross revenues as reported in its audited financial statements.
Erricson protested claiming that the computration should be based on
gross receipts and not on gross revenue. The protest was denied and
petitioner was given 30 days within which to appeal the denial.
Petitioner file a petition for review before the RTC praying for the
annulment and canecellation of petitioner’s deficiency local business
taxes.
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Court has
no jurisdiction over the subject matter and petitioner had no legal
capacity to sue. RTC denied the motion and declared the respondents
in default for failure to include a notice of hearing.
RTC Decision
RTC canceled and set aside the assessments made by the respondent.
CA Decision
The CA sided with the respondent. It ruled that the RTC should have
dismissed the petition on the gound that there is a failure in showing
that Atty. Ramos, petitioner’s Manager for Tax and Legal Affairs and
the person who signed the Verification and Certification of Non-
Forum Shopping, was duly authorized by the BOD. It denied the MR.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
Issue:
Won the local business tax should based on gross receipts or gross
revenue.
Gross Receipts include money or its equivalent actually or
constructively received in consideration of services rendered or
articles sold, exchanged or leased, whether actual or constructive.
Gross revenue covers money or its equivalent actually or
constructively received including the value of of services rendered or
articles sold, exchanged or leased, the payment of which is yet to be
received.
It is the gross inflow of economic benefits arising from ordinary
operating activities of an enterprise which is measured at the fair
value of the consideration received or receivable.
Section 132. Taxes must be levied in accordance